<quoted text>Show me where any one said the thief who used a stolen gun is not responsible for that crime.Just because they say the gun owner may have some responsibility, doesn't mean they advocate letting the criminal off. Geesh, talk about your limited mind set, its binary logic for you, isn't it. Either the criminal is guilty or the gunner owner is, but it can't be both. 1 or 0.I believe that their point is that the gun owner who didn't properly secure his firearms also has some culpability. as with everything, there are different degrees of responsibility. People who own guns have to admit that they are in possession of a deadly tool and need to take the proper precautions to secure that tool. A bat doesn't fall into that category.I am a gun owner/collector. Its people like you, who refuse to admit that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill. That in order to own a gun, people should be required to undergo a background check. I go even further, that you should be required to take a gun safety course, at least an 8 hour course.Tell me, do you think Adam Lanza's mother shares some cupability in what happened in Newtown Cn? She knew her son was a little off, and dangerous (according to a man who used to baby sit him ). She took him to the range and taught him to shoot. she obviously didn't secure the guns from him.So is she completely innocent of the massacre?

There is something really off about that whole incident, as the mother, according to her friends, had been desperately trying to get her son committed, but she helped him acquire, not just guns, but very dangerous guns. I suspect she innocently didn't understand just how insane he was. Unfortunately it cost her her life.

There is some university prof somewhere in the USA who runs an online blog about conspiracies, and he is convinced (or at least is showing how it could be) that the Conn shooting was all staged by actors, as a publicity gimmick for Obama, or something to that effect. While I know that there is some truth to some of the conspiracy theories that have floated around in my lifetime, because I am 100% positive that the stories we are given are never "the whole story", I can hardly imagine 28 people being claimed dead and it all being an act, and someone would not have blown that hoax wide open by now.

Read it for yourself, unsupported nionsense and excuse making, attacking the authors and not the data.

I did, and apparently a LOT better than you did. So when they say;

"None of the DATA upon which the book is based was gathered with any consideration for the "race" of the subjects, and in fact, the studies on which the most in depth analyses were made consisted entirely of white subjects."

<quoted text>In San Francisco, yes. But you have to carry at least a small towel, for sitting down at a cafe or restaurant chair. It's a public health measure.Wonder what RR thinks about the government forcing you to sit on a towel for heaven's sake.

<quoted text>Clementia, what country do you live in? Did you grow up in India?I'm thinking of going to India next year for a number of reasons, one of them being I am a big fan of classical Indian music and will plan my visit with to coincide with one of the major classical music festivals they have every year.

I live in England, my dear. I came to England when I was a baby. My papa married my mummy from India. I'm from punjab, u know? I've been to india many times, I went there for 6 months once and I try to go every year!!

<quoted text>That is likely because those who smoke pot, and I have never tried it, so only know by what others tell me, if they were to smoke as many cigarettes of pot in a day as they did tobacco would likely suffer much worse health effects than from tobacco including frying their brain, but because it has such a big effect in small quantities, and usually it is not as easy to come by and expensive since it is mainly illegal (including the death penalty in some countries) people tend not to chain smoke pot. I believe that I have read that pot by comparison if used like tobacco is far more dangerous than tobacco but I stand to be corrected.Here, I think, someone pulled over who has been smoking pot will be charge for driving under the influence as he would with alcohol. Yes, I just checked, a person impaired by pot smoking will be charged the same as he would for driving UIF alcohol.

A joint should keep you happy for 2/3 hrs. A cigarette should keep you happy for 20 minutes. Now is it because pot is stronger than tobacco you can go longer without or is it that tobacco is much more addictive that you need it more often. And don't forget people add tobacco to their pot, so what are they really craving? The pot or the tobacco.

<quoted text>I can't believe most Americans can't drive manuals, OMG, u guys think u so good driving automatics, 3 year olds can drive those and silly people can't even park near the curb, OMG, i feel like an expert car driver!!So Redneck is a liar, he said by the river!Yes, I know! I seen them!!

I am an American, and I have four cars. Three are manuals, one is a manual/automatic (paddle shifters). And I am a very good driver.

<quoted text>But they were in their own trucks, their own property.Do you support the cops in that example?<quoted text>In this case, society hasn't made the rules, courts have.

Society made the rules, courts make decisions on infractions when people break the rules. I think technically the driver should be charged because the law states that one cannot smoke in an enclosed space where you and/or others work. That is the letter of the law, but I think since the law is intended to protect others from smokers, because we can't legislate agaisnt people deliberately doing harmful things which themselves are legal, then he should have got off of that charge with a severe warning, but no fine or whatever the punishment is.

<quoted text>Because I thought you could think rationally yourself without anyone filling in all the blanks for you. Seriously, you never phrased your question like that before. Next time just be more specific.

I already knew it. Are you gonna be like OCB now & pat yourself on the back?

<quoted text>I did, and apparently a LOT better than you did. So when they say;"None of the DATA upon which the book is based was gathered with any consideration for the "race" of the subjects, and in fact, the studies on which the most in depth analyses were made consisted entirely of white subjects."That's not attacking the data? Year right. You're full of it.

Look, cutie pie, at the end of the bloody day, if u believe in science, it's all about survival of the fittest! They rule so they they make the rules!!

<quoted text>I can't believe most Americans can't drive manuals, OMG, u guys think u so good driving automatics, 3 year olds can drive those and silly people can't even park near the curb, OMG, i feel like an expert car driver!!So Redneck is a liar, he said by the river!Yes, I know! I seen them!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.